RichardPrins wrote:

We ran a little experiment, called "the 20th century". Pretty solid conclusion.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Historical evidence that a 'free market' works? Yes, I'd be interested in seeing that too.

 helenofjoy wrote: 
There could very well be. In fact, it appears there are as many as there are people who describe themselves as 'spiritual'.

 MsJudi wrote: 
I would have appreciated more loving parents

 hippiechick wrote: 
Really? There's never been a lesson I wasn't finally grateful for learning, even the ones that lead to sucky, negative conclusions.

 oldviolin wrote: 
Manure is best when it's spread around and buried deep... 

Jesus was my best friend in grade school.  His mother was from Puerto Rico and made the best fried plantain. 

 samiyam wrote: 
I learned a lot of lessons that I would have rather not have had to have learned.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Wow... sounds like you had the childhood I had. 

 oldviolin wrote: 
The meadow approach.

This is my approach:
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean Philosophy, is the talk on a cereal box
Religion

, is a smile on a dog
I'm not aware of too many things
i know what I know if you know what I mean Chuck me in the shallow water
Before I get too deep What I am is what I am are you what you are or what
What I am is what I am are you what you are or what Oh I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean Philosophy, is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion, is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
Do do ya

I like the organic approach to spirituality, with natural fertilizer and pest control and without the nicks and cuts of a blade...

Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell

Spirituality is for people who have already been there

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Exactly... I approve of people who don't need to define everything.  I think it is noble to make decisions for yourself and then leave them be instead of picking at them like a partially healed-over scab.  I like being able to let my own curiosity take me where it will.  This is much more free than to lock one's mind into a pen with too many definitions.  Amen.  If Galileo had let himself stop questioning, what a terrible thing that would have been.

(You can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd just means that one is unable to lock a definition down while negotiating the vagaries of life.  There will be plenty of time to decide who's right after we're dead... )

What I believe is what I worked out for myself in my own heart and I find that I'm freest when I don't let anyone else's dogma define it.  I'll gladly listen to advice, but don't be upset if I go my own way.

samiyam wrote:

Some of us don't need to define everything. We're comfortable not having an explanation for things we don't understand, even if we're curious about them. We just don't automatically attribute everything we don't understand to the supernatural—that kills the curiosity that will eventually lead to understanding.


...because you don't have faith?

 helenofjoy wrote: 
Exactly.  This is one pitfall of skepticism.  The idea that by doing lots of "thinking" and defining and pigeon-holing one can perfect a system of non-belief that defines everything.  In the end, I have found that these people end up with a system of dogmatic "non-belief" which rivals the most dogmatic inquisitor of the RC church.

You can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd.

 helenofjoy wrote: 
probably as many as there are people who appreciate a little mystery with their preconceptions...

 RichardPrins wrote:

I think 26 years is a long enough time to give him credibility as a non-believer rather than someone grasping at different religious straws. And skepticism means not just accepting things because somebody told to you you should, or because it's fashionable, but taking the time to review the evidence and drawing your own conclusions.

I think Adam Smith has a hell of a lot more historical evidence than your alternative. I'm willing to let more pile up before you change your mind, I just don't want to live with the results of all the failed experiments.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Wow!  I'm interested in seeing the 'definitions of spiritual'

Could there not be more than one definition?

 samiyam wrote: 
That's but a difference. The two things you said you 'believe' in are the same things that can be found in the religions mentioned: an eternal soul and some form of creationism.

It by no means explains/defines 'spiritual', as in "I'm a spiritual man (...)".

 RichardPrins wrote: 
No.  Abrahamic religions believe in a trans-personal god.

 samiyam wrote: 
Just like the Abrahamic religions or Deism...